Menu

The Gatekeepers

My Services Rendered post generated a lot of response in the comments, PMs and even sparked a good debate on the SoSuave forum. All of this got me thinking about economics in the SMP.

It’s funny, I can remember a time in the early 90s when getting your GF to shave her snatch clean was scandalous. It seemed to imply that a guy’s true desire was to bang prepubescent girls. Shaved pubes was ‘niche porn’ back then and you’d have to actually seek it out in the print and VHS days. Now it’s just incidental, and hairy bushes are the niche.

I also remember when I first saw strippers with navel piercings and thinking “goddam that is hot!” Then I started seeing hot ‘normal’ girls doing it, but there was this initial stigma that only sluts, porn stars and strippers got their belly buttons pierced so it was slow to catch on at first – which of course made it all the more hotter when you got with a girl who had one. Don’t even get me started on tongue piercings.

Same thing with tramp stamp tattoos. Initially hot, now, no big deal. I think maybe nipple piercings might be the next thing, but it’s not like average girls go about getting them and showing them off as readily as other “slutty” fashion statements.

I bring all this up as a starting point to illustrate the progression of how the feminine sexual arms race evolves in the sexual marketplace (SMP). It would be very easy to simply pass all of this off as just further indications of society’s moral decline, but that’s too easy an answer. Everyone thought Elvis Presley’s hips and rock & roll would be society’s ticket to Sodom and Gomorrah too. Sexual trends and catering to men’s sexual imperatives makes today’s fetishes tomorrow’s normalized expectations. I expect there was a time when getting a hummer was considered sexually deviant; now it’s expected sexual behavior to where it’s a point of pride for women to give a good one, thus making women uncomfortable with oral sex the deviants.

I can’t think of porn clip I’ve seen in recent memory where a woman didn’t have a navel piercing or shaved snatch. Porn sets a sexual standard, but it also takes it’s cues from larger society. When women complain that they can’t compete with porn stars (dubious in an age of instant amateur porn) you’re listening to a woman resorting to men’s preferred method of communication – overt communication. Essentially she’s exasperated to the point where she needs to make absolutely sure that men unmistakably understand her anxiety, so she speaks his language. “I can’t compete.”

Ironically it’s the same women who were ‘competitors’ in their youth, are the same women who consider their husbands viewing porn to be tantamount to marital infidelity.

The Gatekeepers

Controlling access to sex (women’s primary agency) is the most important aspect of a feminine-primary reality. This reality necessitates that Men’s sexual interests are by default, deviant, hurtful and shameful, while women’s sexual expressions are normative, correct and above reproach. Men are perverts when they masturbate, yet women are so sexy when they masturbate that there’s a niche for it in pornography. The problem the feminine faces in maintaining this control to sexual access is that the same competition that drives women to restrain it is the same competition that forces them to ‘up the ante’ and allow it in order to beat their competitors.

What’s interesting, and ironic, is that women’s push to ban pornography is motivated by the same impetus that makes pornography appealing. Pornography is simply a manifestation of men’s desire for unlimited access to unlimited sexuality. Women’s desire is rooted in hypergamy, from which the best possible situation would be unlimited access to the best quality males. In order to effect the best possible sexual outcomes, both sex’s mating schemas are at odds.

In a male-centric sexual reality, most women would simply never be able to compete; in fact unlimited access to unlimited sexuality ensures they will be outstripped at some point by a sexual competitor. Even in a feminine-centric reality this is at least the mitigated situation. They certainly cannot effect their own sexual schema under these conditions, so the recourse is to use that same sexual agency to control the narrative and enforce their own sexual primacy as the correct one. His access, in fact his very exposure, to sexual competitors must be limited in order for her to select from the most, best, suitors. Limit the experience, limit the options, make her sexual schema the primary normative, inflate the value of her sexuality as a reward, and enforce it with specifically defined moralism.

From a pragmatic, power retention point of view, it makes sense that women would expect men to submit to what best fits their reality and sublimate their sexual imperatives to accommodate a female sexual imperative. This can be effected by reward and punishment. Reward in that a man is allowed sexual access for compliance to her imperatives, and punishment via shame and ridicule for noncompliance or even being critical of it.

The Morality Clause

Appeals to religion or morality are simply convenient tools of this punishment to enforce a female-centric reality. It’s hard to argue against religion or puritanism in a “gender appropriate” debate – it’s unassailable. God / Polite Society dictates that women are to be respected, protected and valued as an unquestioned default position, and even when her actions do not match her words or convictions she’s to be given the benefit of the doubt; and even when she’s caught in her indiscretions it makes a man a Man when he forgives her.

At present, all tenets of conventional morality exist to serve a feminine imperative. That may seem like a bold statement, considering that moralism can be considered a form of ‘slut control’, but think of any example of a vice or a virtue and you can link it back to a latent purpose for it being considered such that serves a female reality. Pornography and prostitution are only considered vices by society at large because they conflict with a broader female-primary reality. Encouraging virtues like temperance and honesty, still serve a female specific reality in that men believe they will be considered higher value mating potential than men who do not possess these virtues – and they help to keep men rooted in one set of social rules while they are free to operate under another set.

Workarounds

As feminism progressively ’empowered’ a more overt feminine reality, so too were methods adapted to circumvent this by men (i.e. Game). Since the sexual revolution, men have been forced into 3 camps; those who embrace and function within the feminine imperative (male feminists), those who reject and remove themselves from it either temporarily or permanently (what Jay Hymowitz calls “man-boys” or “Kidults”), or those who learn the mechanics of the female imperative and subvert it to their own purpose (PUAs, DJs, Game).

These camps, and men’s increasing refusal or abdication to play in an overt, female-centric reality, is the reason for more and more litigation intended to get men to either comply or be legally bound to the responsibilities of living in a female reality. For centuries women have relied on passively engineered social conventions that were accepted into our cultural consciousness that carried shame or some attached social stigma for a man who wouldn’t comply with them. Since the beginning of the sexual revolution however, these social conventions have become increasingly less effective as women perceive them as vestiges of a male patriarchy. Men see women eschewing these “traditional” conventions, but are themselves still expected to abide by them while respecting women for NOT abiding by them. So over the course of 2 decades men become less controlled by the old social structure, and unwilling to participate in a female-centric reality. What to do?

Now, as men are becoming increasingly aware of the raw deal they’ve gotten, and with the advent of global interconnectivity with other men, the female-centric response is to legally force men into that reality. Thus the laws enacted which pertain to a specific gender become more and more gratuitous for women and more draconian for men. If men will not respect a feminine imperative by social means, then it will be necessary to petition the state to enforce their reality upon men.

Rollo said: These camps, and men’s increasing refusal or abdication to play in an overt, female-centric reality, is the reason for more and more litigation intended to get men to either comply or be legally bound to the responsibilities of living in a female reality.

I’m not sure if I agree or disagree here. I know plenty of women who have become really intrigued, even entranced, by evo-psych ideology, and those same women are vocalizing to me their hatred of the Kidults and man-childs in their lives, even going so far as to verbalize exactly what I am thinking about these “men” — that some of them are beyond help.

I also see it myself on Facebook and twitter: guys who love to bare all about their emotional instability, thereby closing the door on ANY chances they have with ANY female they happen to be “friends” with.

So my perspective, at least, is that I’m seeing more and more females who are now cognizant of their needs, from a pure evo-psych perspective, even if they aren’t particularly ready to accept the role of the submissive partner. I’m seeing more and more guys (as a percentage of the population of men) who are sliding more into Kidulthood and submissiveness, even if the number of men learning Game/confidence seems to be growing in size. Game is growing, but the percentage of males who are learning game seems to be shrinking compared to the percentage of guys who are obviously accepting the feminist-Marxist societal structure.

When women can get pregnant without sperm — and I think this will happen in my lifetime — society is in for a huge change. Disposable males will become the slaves to maintain a society that will have little need for submissive males for any other reason. Maybe it’s already happening with artificial insemination and sperm banks.

You’ll soon see more women in “power” in the next 10 years because of the submissive new nature of most males — Hilary for President? More women at the top of HP and maybe even Apple?

Of course, this problem is exactly why I’m happy to share all your posts with those I know who are experiencing their own fall into submission — maybe, just maybe, some of them will open their eyes and realize that practically every they’re doing (working in a large corporate structure, voting, going out on dates and constantly footing the bill, etc, etc, etc) is submissive in general, and submissive to the feminist doctrine in specifics.

Reading this, I can’t help but feel that a thousand-plus years of social engineering is crumbling, that the very ground of social thought on which the feminine-centrism is built, is shaking itself apart.

“Of course, this problem is exactly why I’m happy to share all your posts with those I know who are experiencing their own fall into submission — maybe, just maybe, some of them will open their eyes and realize that practically every they’re doing (working in a large corporate structure, voting, going out on dates and constantly footing the bill, etc, etc, etc) is submissive in general, and submissive to the feminist doctrine in specifics.”
— A. B. Dada

Admirable. Except, well, Slim Fucking Chance of THAT happening.

If you haven’t already, take a look at this book by Nigerian author Chinweizu, titled the “Anatomy Of Female Power”. In it, he explains how the indoctrination of males into the feminine-centric reality begins at an age when males are mostly helpless to the persuasive powers of women, i.e. their infancy. In my experience, the chances of a Male swallowing the Red Pill are about as slim as those of women admitting to the concept of hypergamy.

It takes a really desperate man to see that he’s at the lowest end of his rope in terms of his ability to control HIMSELF in such a feminine-centric world, and that nothing can be lost in seeking a way out of his predicament. Simply telling a man that he needs to learn Game is, IMHO, counter-productive. He needs to decide FOR HIMSELF that it’s about time he learnt how NOT to be controlled by his desires, how to thwart the deviant manipulations of the female sex, and thus how to avoid being led around by the nose by the ephemeral notion of sexual reward that almost all women constantly dangle in front of him.

Of course, I personally believe that a man has, nay – NEEDS to be burnt, as harshly as possible, before he can truly appreciate the need for Game as a method of self-control, and as his key to get out of the Matrix. In short, as his salvation from the ever-hanging noose around his neck that is the primary objective of the feminine-centric reality: the indirect subjugation of men through sexual desire, shame, and guilt, in order to extract as much utility from him as he is able to give.

Why would they? Men (those not self-aware yet) are already far too steeped in a feminine-centric reality to see any wrong in it. It has become “normal”. If you’ve been taught that woman is pure, moral and the embodiment of all that is good in the world, this kinda shit would sound absolutely normal to you.

You would provide no resistance. And that, right there, is the biggest problem.

“God / Polite Society dictates that women are to be respected, protected and valued as an unquestioned default position, and even when her actions do not match her words or convictions she’s to be given the benefit of the doubt; and even when she’s caught in her indiscretions it makes a man a Man when he forgives her.”

The bible does NOT teach:

a) That women are a privileged class.

b) That God = Polite Society.

c) That a man becomes a Man when he forgives a woman.

The bible teaches that:

1. Evil finds a willing conduit into the world through Eve’s gullibility (first), then Adam’s complicity (second). Moving forward, it teaches that men become Men when they learn to admonish women when they stray – rather like a sheepdog learning how to guide a sheep.

2. All people are sinful by default because the female gullibility and male complicity described above allowed sinfulness into the world. Moving forward, it teaches that the only way to defeat sin is by grace and forgiveness. Otherwise the pendulum will perpetually swing one way or t’other, depending on who has the greater power at the time.

3. God dictates that all people are to be respected, protected and valued equally as they deal together with the consequences of sin. In other words, when a person’s “actions do not match [their] words or convictions”, they are to be admonished and treated with caution, but also with grace and forgiveness, just as you would expect to be treated when you make a mistake.

4. When “[a person] is caught in [their] indiscretions”, they are not to be shamed, but rebuked with a view to helping them self-correct.

A.B. Daba said, “When women can get pregnant without sperm — and I think this will happen in my lifetime — society is in for a huge change. Disposable males will become the slaves to maintain a society that will have little need for submissive males for any other reason. Maybe it’s already happening with artificial insemination and sperm banks.

You’ll soon see more women in “power” in the next 10 years because of the submissive new nature of most males — Hilary for President? More women at the top of HP and maybe even Apple?”

I might be inclined to agree with but history would undermine those propositions. The relative stability we’ve seen in the post-WWII era has come to end and was quite short-lived, historically speaking. We, in the West are entering a post-American world in which the US is NOT the sole hegemon, but rather one of many. Of those potential rivals, China and India both have huge demographic surpluses of men, are resource poor eg potable water, are on each others borders, and armed with nuclear weapons. The best case scenario, is that they gobble up the smaller nations surrounding them, including their women, until finally forced to confront their rivals.

My point isn’t to argue which nation would win in a war, but to point out that the stable societies of the West, which have give women safety and security, and the luxury of debasing themselves with Feminist ideology are likely to come to end. And soon.

Europe? Facing a demographic time bomb whereby there aren’t enough Europeans having babies to work and support the socialism welfare societies that allow women the luxury of divorce, singledom, promiscuity, etc. The portions of European society that are having babies are predominately Muslim, socially conservative, inimical to European and Western values, and Feminism, and when the demographics even nominally favor them, will likely impose Sharia, which in itself is hugely anti-woman and when that happens Europeans won’t have the will to fight it. Rather ironic, that most Feminists are incapable of criticizing Islamic practices as Islam is another protected group among the Left.

The rest of the West-US, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand are well on their path to becoming socialists welfare states. The irony is that the societies and social welfare states that women, Feminists have set up are undermining the men would have traditionally defended those societies.

The relative peace and safety we’ve enjoyed over the past several decades will come to an end. Perhaps in a bang, perhaps in a whimper.

Maybe women in charge will continue to screw up the economies the white knights have and they will usher in a new dark ages. The question is: Does western man regain control, will Islam sweep the lands, or will western civilization limp along for some longer time than expected so something else comes up.

False rape allegations are a good example of women using the law to help gain hand as a group over men.

You might argue that the tactic is merely pathological. However the pathology that underlies it is common and strategic. Keep men afraid of the wrath of the spurned woman.

The “you break it, you buy it” attitude towards vagina is a female centric notion that is instinctive. Just as a butterfly can instinctively migrate to a single tree thousands of miles away, women instinctively know that men must be forced, by any and all means necessary, into a “you break it you’ve bought it” mentality. Provisioning is the instinctive cost of pussy.

False rape accusations are just one extreme way to enforce this policy. “He didn’t call me afer. Rape!”

Rollo – this isn’t too related to this post, but I think some folks can learn from it, and I just really wanted to say thanks man. I found your blog a few weeks ago and ever since I’ve been reading it for hours a day, trying to read all you wrote. It’s the most refreshing thing I’ve ever seen. My dad is definitely an AFC. His wife has 0 respect for him, screams at him all the time, and his own son steals from him all the time and he just sits there and takes it. He never gave me any guidance on women whatsoever and I felt like a kid who grew up without a father for the most part.

I did manage to pull an HB8 with beta game years ago, and eventually we got engaged. It lasted a couple years, until I found out she had no intention of marrying me, she just used me. I got her a job, got her into a college (filled out her apps, even picked her major and did some of her HW for her), and woke up at the crack of dawn and changed my life schedule to drive her to her job and school just about every day. I drove her home and I made her dinner (because “she can’t cook and I do it so well”). I paid for her pets (3 cats and a dog, plus a hamster and fish) and all the dates. I was happy just with the sex I got from her. That all came to an end when I found out she was basically cheating on me when she had her “girls nights out” which were multiple times a week. She would even call me at 12 to say she got home safe, but in reality she was out until like 4 AM.

So, I dumped her (she wouldn’t break up with me, even after I confronted her and she told me she didn’t love me… then she told her friends I was an asshole for dumping her…). I was left an empty husk of a man. I was totally devastated. I wasted 3 years of my life on a whore. I was hollow. I had degrees in 3 different subjects at that point, and an offer to make over $100,000 (I was even a campaign manager before I graduated college) but I could not function. Eventually I joined the military (weird for a guy with my background, but I felt it was my duty to serve my country and honestly plan to stay here forever now – I am no longer a nerdy overintelligent kid, I am a finely tuned instrument of warfare who can use his intelligence to win battles, not help narcissists get elected) and that really helped me out because it’s a high testosterone business and I learned to be far more assertive, and got strong and ripped which helped my confidence. I started learning game, but until I read this site I never truly internalized it, but now I’m internalizing it and I find myself so much happier and fulfilled. I feel like a man, I can’t explain it, but this is the way a man is supposed to feel. It also made me realize a lot of people practicing game, even the successful ones, are still truly AFC’s at heart because they have not internalized game and become alphas.

I’m still not where I want to be with women, but I know I’m really getting there. I’m not looking for a GF anymore, I am looking for plates to spin. I got rid of the beta influences in my life, which were mostly religious (but I see them for what they are – not true Christianity but christianity subverted by feminism. Most churches these days are ULTRA fucking girly). I’m honest with myself now – I really want to fuck a hot woman. I don’t believe in that soulmate shit, but I hope to find a wife who is an excellent match like it seems you found too Rollo (and even then, I’ll make sure I never stop being interesting to other women, so that I am never afraid to NEXT even a wife if she should so deserve it).

Thank you Rollo, for everything. Also, if you have any suggestions on any blogs or books to read, I would be highly interested. I’m still trying to learn game and want to become more alpha. I want to see what it’s like to spin some HB7+ plates, and have options.

Today I read more about how the laws against men (such as laws lobbied for by feminist women to limit the options men legally have for sex in the U.S.) are for power/control over men and for extra money for these so called women. So, these particular laws were more about the control and money for them. It is said that men want sex, and women want control/socio-economic status/money. There’s a saying something like, a woman tries to control a man, but it’s a man’s job to never let that happen. Divorce is a multi-billion dollar a year industry (lawyers are not going to hand that stash over by changing any laws just because those laws are not favorable to the majority of men), so lawyers and women both have a financial incentive to advocate for the legal institution of marriage and then for ending of marriages in divorce (the man involved is collateral damage but they don’t care about him) so both the lawyer and the woman get most of his resources/money. Women should pay the man to have sex (although it’s the status/money most women want to begin with and not the sex so the women would not part with their spending money for shoes/a dildo and a vibrator because it is said that women get more pleasure from the clit than from intercourse, so women don’t need a man for sex but they like a man who is a walking ATM for her). Real men would make laws in favor of their masculine incentives like, if the woman doesn’t stay in shape/dress attractive daily/and have sex at least 5 times a week, then he can divorce her for half of her money and he gets back everything he ever bought for her anyway.

Brother, read this over and over until you get it. Men greater than you have plumbed depths far deeper than, “The brain secretes morality as the liver secretes bile,” which is your elementary meanderings on the topic elevated to its most articulate expression.

Ease up on the pontification about the sources of morality.

Appeals to religion or morality are simply convenient tools of this punishment to enforce a female-centric reality. It’s hard to argue against religion or puritanism in a “gender appropriate” debate – it’s unassailable. God / Polite Society dictates that women are to be respected, protected and valued as an unquestioned default position, and even when her actions do not match her words or convictions she’s to be given the benefit of the doubt; and even when she’s caught in her indiscretions it makes a man a Man when he forgives her.

At present, all tenets of conventional morality exist to serve a feminine imperative. …

… is flat stupid. Take my assertion and just trust it; or get yourself up to speed with a conversation that is at present well past your ken. You embarrass the truth of game by applying it where it simply does not apply, and I wonder how many credulous fools are duped by your simulations of profundity.

Demonstrate what you know about “God / Polite Society” beyond superficial, outsider resentments and predictable conclusions. It would be an insult to Nietzsche to call your slapdash notions sub-sub-Nietzschean. There is an intelligent case to be made against Christian morality, and you have no access to it. Keep your mental wanderings confined to your experiences, and you won’t embarrass yourself.

Your observations are articles of faith. You leave no room for critique or argument. Either the brain secretes thoughts like bile or it doesn’t. Either morality itself is feminine or it isn’t. You have made your guess and you’re sticking to it. But for you to reduce an expansive subject like morality to mere feminine traits indicates a breakdown at the definitional level and the need for emergency remedial instruction. I hope you’re at least attempting to read up on this stuff from the masters. (At your age, however, the suppleness of mind required for understanding has given way to an early onset rigor mortis, which is why you get this training early in life or not at all.)

I have to be honest. I can’t stop insulting you long enough to be interested in discovering the sources of your error. My contempt for unstudied sophists like you is pure. Plus, the law of diminishing returns kicks in: what chance do I have to steer your rusting battleship around, to a place where we might parley? I’d rather hurl broadsides.

I respect that you, unlike other bloggers in this genre, understand the need to get deep into certain philosophical weeds, and I suppose we can commend your effort per se. But the blithe assumptions of the other bloggers are expressed in a kind of modesty: Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent. They retain the virtue of not publicly confirming the harrowing depths of their ignorance, and in that silence we might divine some hope: Better to be silent and thought a fool than to open one’s mouth and remove all doubt.

You, on the other hand, have staked a claim that cannot be defended without even comprehending the necessity of mounting a defense. This is unacceptable. If you are going to make pretensions of intellectual respectability in areas in which you have zero experience, you are putting yourself in direct conflict with readers like me, who will make note of it.

If you represent the vanguard of intellectual game, then the whole movement will be killed in the cradle. This community has enough natural enemies that want to snuff it out without sloppy thinkers begging for new ones out of sheer philosophical confusion. The only reason why this embryonic reclamation of manliness hasn’t been aborted is because we are still beneath our enemies’ notice. When they do turn their gaze our way, when we awake the sleeping mother-whore, we had better have our shit locked down tight. You are a mess, and you don’t even know it. Worse, you have foreclosed all possibility of acknowledging these fatal shortcomings. Up your game or get out of the way.

No human conduct ever puzzled a psychoanalyst, at least not for long, only until he had successfully fitted a few facts into the Procrustean bed of his theoretical presuppositions; likewise no Marxist possessed of the laws of dialectical materialism ever found any historical development surprising

“How you act human”) could be understood as a function of the frontal lobes.

Sure.

The brain secretes morality as the liver secretes bile.

Define morality?

In other words, people who do the worst things are not so much bad as ill, whether the illness is congenital or acquired.

I like that.

There is something irreducibly individual in human conduct

Meh. Paraphrasing, every major law is just a rule of thumbs. Generalizations are just that.

Darwinism as the latest substitute for religion for those who seek religious meaning without being religious

Sad isnt it. One stupidity replaces the other leaving the stupidity intact.

There will always be more than enough mystery to thwart those who claim to know, at long last, “how you act human,” and “what it means to be a human organism.”

OK nice read but… there was no point on it. I liked a few references and want to know more about the brain scans. The guy would make for a good afternoon-tea safe conversation.

Kinga, the stuff that seemed to bother you so much was this:

Appeals to religion or morality are simply convenient tools of this punishment to enforce a female-centric reality.

Paraphrased, the new, modern and current, female centric reality has its own “moral”, social common sense, precepts, biases, etc. And it takes elements from religion or supports from whatever it can to make its biased points.

If that idea is bothering you, I cant tell why. It is totally unrelated to how the brain processes empathy or moral or being human. Social groups get together and once they get some power, they dispatch rules and control and push other groups down. That´s how its always been and will be. Right now the moral religion etc. is more and more female centric. and blah blah blah blah I own your ass.

There are reasons enough in anyone’s immediate purview from any time in history to believe he is living in the end times. Select certain signs and you can cobble together a case for pessimism even during the golden ages. This is not altogether a bad thing; doom mongering keeps us better prepared than the Panglossians.

Technology tempts us to think in progressive terms, as if all aspects of life move along at the pace and in the direction of Moore’s Law. Rollo’s facile account above, gauged by the standard of what he remembers when he was young, assumes that the gathering slutdom is uni-directional. This has never been the case. Moral desuetude is not a slope into the abyss. It is one part of a self-correcting cycle. The cycle is a long observed fact of decadence, from Plato’s Republic to Fukuyama’s The Great Disruption. Or, more succinctly, Isaiah 55:11.

Simply put: those who think they have transcended natural limits — whether through novel philosophies and modes of life, or through technology and a sense that “things are different now” — kill themselves off, and nature returns with a vengeance. Like the Shakers who in their zeal mistook nature for sin and prohibited fucking, they are a footnote in history while the “backwards” Amish own the future. The fondest liberal wishes cannot overturn the Law of Exponents.

Now, maybe the inevitable recovery doesn’t much interest us, who were born to the down-cycle. It sucks to live through, if you are of a certain negative frame. But the rebirth is a bulwark of natural law we can rely on as a cause for hope, that our efforts against an inexorable tide are not wasted. Marxist (Hegelian) historicism has convinced us “resistance is futile” against the grand narrative of fate controlling our impulses. Luckily, historicism is demonstrable bullshit. There has been no “End of History,” though the self-importance of the forever present will always tempt us to declare it so. We deny the cycle because it stretches past the average lifetime and therefore past our typical imaginations.

Yes, we were born into the carnival of freaks where the id comes out to play here in the down-cycle. But it is a common misapprehension to believe that current trends indicate future results. “The facts of life are conservative.” That is, the minute the young man imagines himself superior to what came before is the minute the slap-down begins. The Greeks had this figured out at least since the Myth of Icarus. Hubris is the indispensable element of tragedy, and as long as there are young men, it will have to be learned individually, again and again and again.

Or you can just pay attention to Aeschylus and Isaiah and save yourself a lot of trouble.

Wha? Mystery (or “puzzle”) is at the heart of faith. See: Paschal, Trinity, Incarnation. That’s why it’s called faith and not “knowledge.” So that’s just false on its face.

But not quite what Daniels or I were getting at, anyway. The hubris of reductive materialism is in the claim that they have solved all mystery, that everything is intelligible, and that any acknowledgment of mystery is ipso facto superstitious.

Rollo needs to read Daniels, or any of a hundredcritiquesof eliminative materialism or positivism, to understand the limits of the presumptions behind the random utterances he presents as fact.

Yes, I “see something else.” I see Rollo laying the groundwork for the rejection of the only ally that has a chance to make the wind-down of feminism something less than catastrophic. And for no good reason! Out of sheer intellectual laziness or lack of imagination or plain ignorance he advocates throwing the baby (“Appeals to religion or morality”) out with the bathwater (the “feminine imperative”).

There is a reason simpletons connect religion to mere feminism and move on to the next point, and Daniels touches on that reason: all religions and all ideologies are merely “belief systems” that have since been eliminated by eliminative materialism. Or, as you put it, “Nor… you name it,” as if no methodology beyond materialism can have a claim to the truth, relegating every authority inferior to scientism. If no one puts shysters like him in his place, the movement either collapses under its pretensions or floats into the ether for lack of moorings and heft. Scientism was the wrecking ball that cleared the venerable old structures so that the tenements of feminism could be built and, today, squatted in.

I realize this is all “blah blah blah” to you, and you have other fish to fry. Godspeed in your mission, brother. But the longevity of a movement in the face of superior power and lies, as the “feminine imperative” enjoys at present, depends on a rigorously determined raison d’être the equal of, if not the superior to, that “belief system” whose legitimacy to rule is uncontested because it is regarded as incontestable. Half-cooked, thrice-regurgitated upchuck from long inert philosophasters isn’t going to cut it.

“Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence, are usually the slaves of some defunct [thinker].” — Keynes

I appreciate the feedback. It lets me know how I am perceived, and that is helpful.

Unfortunately there is no other way to engage at this level. By its very inaccessible nature a discussion of fundamental principles runs the risk of appearing to be “blah blah blah” to those who do not put in the time to understand a difficult concept.

Because it’s inaccessible at the immediate level, the topic is considered irrelevant or, as you seem to think, needlessly aggressive. Those assumptions keep you in the box you started in. Now, it’s a pretty expansive box, and lots of space for the mind of average inquisitiveness to move around in comfort. But if I can make one thing clear, it would be this: these Tomassian faux-profound digressions are ultimately inadequate to the task.

And, by the way, your flip approach makes this entire website pointless, as Rollo’s lengthy discourses attempt to take the conversation one level deeper than his peers. Which, as I said, is commendable. Most of the time, a “well said” or a “hear, hear” is appropriate. Other times, Rollo’s more outre dilations are made better with push back.

“Wives and Husbands
22 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.

25 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, 26 that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27 so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.[a] 28 In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, 30 because we are members of his body. 31 “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” 32 This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church. 33 However, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband. ”

“God / Polite Society dictates that women are to be respected, protected and valued as an unquestioned default position, and even when her actions do not match her words or convictions she’s to be given the benefit of the doubt; and even when she’s caught in her indiscretions it makes a man a Man when he forgives her.”

(Especially applying to God’s society). Nowhere it is said that women should be put on a pedestal. Quite the opposite, the word “submit” is used. Religion is against feminism too. Hope this helps.

You know, there’s really only one topic that I post about that consistently evokes a response from you, and that’s anything to do with your perception that I may be impugning traditional morality, ethics and (presumably Judeo-Christian) religion in association with intergender dynamics. I’ll refer to my post where you make the same misunderstanding that I’m in any way implying that religion, or morality in a more general sense, is to blame for the dynamic I’m outlining in the post.

For the record, I’m not specifically opposed to the concepts of ethics, moralism or religion per se, but I am well aware of how useful a tool these ideas have historically been to promote specific and individualized interests; either for beneficent or nefarious causes. If I analyze a particular intergender dynamic within the context of a modern, moralistic acculturation – while I’m sure it offends people of your sensibilities – think of it less as an indictment of the concept of morality that’s led to the social understanding and more of how it’s used for the purpose of (in this case) the feminine imperative.

From the preamble of :

I’d very much like to leave religion, at least in the organized sense, as a topic for another blog, however, as it applies to Game and intergender social dynamics it’s occurred to me that this isn’t entirely possible. Since its inception the SoSuave community has had a strict policy against threads specifically exploring religious topics. For obvious reasons these tend to get rather heated in terms of discussing theology, and most simply devolve into flame wars with no real purpose. Yet, in terms of how religion and moralism apply to the intergender landscape and sexual marketplace, I think it does a disservice to a fuller understanding of how the sexes relate to one another. In my tenure as a SoSuave forum moderator it pains me to have to delete so many promising threads because the topic strayed form “Game and religion” into “My God can beat up your God.” So my disclaimer for this blog is this; any time I delve into the subject of religion, moralism, ethics or anything that might be construed as esoterically inspired, understand that I do so in an effort to address how it influences the social dynamics between genders. Never is it an attack on individual beliefs, rather consider it a critical analysis of how those beliefs interact with the reality we live in.

Bob is right. However, it’s easy to see why anyone would think otherwise, given the proclivities of most Christian denominations. What many churches preach on these kinds of subjects is often diametrically opposed to the Bible. I’ve been looking in the Bible to find a specific condemnation of polygamy, yet I cannot find any. The best case one can make against polygamy is this: “God commands, through Paul, that pastors have one wife, and since we’re all supposed to emulate pastors we should all have 1 wife.” It’s a craptastic argument. God never specifically says polygamy is wrong, and some of his best men did it, such as King David, whose lineage produced Mary whom God chose to bare Christ Himself! God called King David a “man after My own heart.” The point here is not to argue in favor of polygamy, but to show how the church overshadows the Bible in many ways and promotes this femcentric understanding which obscures the truth. I still go to church because God commands fellowship, but I don’t swallow everything that’s said hook line and sinker. I check it against the Bible.

Rollo wrote: “You know, there’s really only one topic that I post about that consistently evokes a response from you…”

It is the only topic of yours that requires a response from me. Apparently your other sometime-readers don’t see the inconsistency or the corrosiveness of your position. Yes, I am “[pro]voked” when half-formed theories threaten to spread misinformation contrary to the cause. The other side must be defended, and in defending, snuff out your wrong-headed, casually disseminated canards.

I know you are not “specifically opposed to the concepts of ethics, moralism or religion per se.” If you were specific, my janitorial job would be much easier. The problem is the generality of your swipes. It indicates an intellectual laziness that undermines your overall credibility. These just aren’t topics you think about much or deeply. Worse, you don’t understand the need for engagement at that level before repeating thoughtless platitudes.

“I’m sure it offends people of your sensibilities….”

Don’t be so “sure.” I am not offended. The force of your argument is not such that it can generate offense. I am peeved, not outraged. Yours is the prevailing understanding of the culture, and you are simply, obediently reiterating it. And I’m not sure what you mean by “people of your sensibilities.” Christians? Conservatives? Men? I don’t have sensibilities; I have theories, positions, philosophies, principles, and arguments — each supportable all the way down to bedrock, if you have the ability to go there.

If you’d truly “like to leave religion, at least in the organized sense, as a topic for another blog” then take care not to bring it up in maximum ignorance. It is strategically wise to leave aside the subjects to which you have nothing to contribute but regurgitated cliche. But the fact that you believe you can avoid certain areas of understanding indicates how poorly grounded your theories are. “It’s all in the game.”

t’s easy to see why anyone would think otherwise, given the proclivities of most Christian denominations. What many churches preach on these kinds of subjects is often diametrically opposed to the Bible.

Absolutely. The church needs to be reformed from within just as much as the culture needs to be reformed from without. She has deep psychic wounds from a century of feminism, just as every other institution does: professional life, military, academia. The only places surviving relatively unscathed are entrepreneurialism and high-level sports.

The “proclivities” have to be turned around, and to do that you can’t flee like sissies. You have to remain faithful to effect the reclamation in every part of your life, in every institution that even tangentially overlaps with your dominion.

Rollo finds it difficult to square this particular circle. It shouldn’t be, given the deep-rooted common causes you cite above. If we don’t square the necessary circles, who will? If alphas don’t effect this revolution, who will?

In churches that have held onto their orthodoxy, the feminist disease never reached the point of threatening the body. The new-wave faddish congregations will slide into history just as quickly as they appeared. Seriously. Openly gay bishops celebrating sodomy. Women in pink roman collars calling themselves “Reverend.” It’s like an inverted mass, a satanic parody.

Soi dissant alphas affect a pose of independence and believe this means they are too cool for communion. This dream of transcending all powers is the fantasy of every boy feeling his oats, a typical dream that attends a man’s introduction to power with no connection to reality. They think because they can challenge the idea of God without instant consequence they are themselves gods. It is a permanent feature of growing into one’s manhood. The delusion is punctured upon the first injury, the kid intimates his mortality, but by then he is so invested in the faux independence that he constructs entire philosophies based on a falsehood.

These philosophies will have a permanent audience so long as there are young men (and old men pining for recaptured youth). It’s not hard to get applause when you are flattering an adolescent’s sense of self. It is a symbiotic relationship.

“Religion” comes from the Latin re- ligere, to bind again, sharing its root with words like ligament and ligature. It is an inescapable, indispensable foundation for any lasting cause of any importance. We are bound together and we act in communion by shared principles, just like the PUA/game/alpha/men’s rights/seduction “community” moves in a certain direction due to its combined mutual efforts. You can’t escape religion, and you can’t evade a discussion of the impulse to bind together, even with the offhanded cliche about “organized” versus personal religiosity.

If gamesters were serious about reasserting their manhood on the world, if they weren’t so provincial and so easily satisfied with small ball, they would employ the tested, successful, and venerable means of “binding together” that hundreds of generations of men have used since culture immemorial. Christianity’s purposes are not at odds with their program.

In fact, the very idea that Christianity is feminine is itself a Marxist-feminist lie: A lie internalized and perpetuated by the unthinking, self-styled philosophers of every modern movement, including game. If you want to understand how deep the feminist rot goes, you have to have the balls to take a look at yourselves. You have to acquire the tools to examine the unchallenged principles you presume as given, the cryptoleftist myths you take for granted as settled.

Look, men. When you are also able to get pregnant and have your life and bodily radically altered by pregnancy and childbirth, you’ll get to pick and choose who you have sex with, too. Until we can have the total biological equality you apparently desire so much, you’re going to have to live with a bit of gender inequality (sniffle! sob!)

Meanwhile, enjoy being the gatekeepers to love and commitment.

And men who are actually sexually desirable to women have no trouble getting laid, so work on that. Figure out why women don’t want you and fix it (hint: money has nothing to do with it. Misogynistic self-pity, on the other hand, sends most women running for the hills. Get a clue, or die alone. Your choice.)

Usual pathetic attempt at shaming from a female – this time Kayla above. The one thing that drives women crazy is indifference – their power stopped in its track. I wonder how she is coping viz-a-viz her sisters in the sexual arms race – losing out or slutting it up. Its tough for a woman, too much on either side and she loses out, and that, of course, without the ravages of time, weight, and natural ugliness. No wonder she has to come here for a little attention.